Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Not every complaint is a sign of hatred. Sometimes it's constructive dissent, they like the product but dislike some aspect of it, so they voice that. In the case of games, of course they buy the sequel, they want to know if their voice was heard. If it wasn't, they repeat their complaint; if it was, they complain about some other aspect they think could be improved.

This isn't a bad thing, either. Companies can improve their products and services by listening to the dissenting comments of their customers; but that only works if the people you call trolls actually voice their opinions.

Instead of thanking your lucky stars for being ultra rich in comparison to most of the world

In the context of that, well, being "rich" is all about the numbers. Literally just numbers. So I'd say it was pretty much on point.

Do we enjoy a better quality of life than most of the world? Sure. I never claimed otherwise. In fact, I actually said:

Sure, we have nicer stuff, which our financial overlords let us use, for now.

That's an admission that we're doing better in the "who has the better toys" race, which is what you seem to think matters. But no, it actually is the numbers that matter.
Why? Why is the the numbers and not quality of life? Because, until we actually own things, banks can decide they simply don't want us to have their property any longer and take it away. But that's really secondary to the problem you're (and rightly so) trying to address: our ability, at an individual level, to actually do something to improve the quality of life for the rest of the world. When 25% of the population has less than $10 after debts have been accounted for, they simply can not afford to affect change in the global economy. When you factor in that even average and slightly above average (so now we're looking at 60-75% of the population) earners are living paycheck to paycheck and often have less than $100 after debts, well, they can't do anything about it either.

You've got a nation of people who might give enough of a shit to want to do something to improve quality of life on a global scale, but who simply don't have the means. Sure, they could donate their time, but, well, first they'd have to be able to afford the time off work; and that's assuming the organization they were working with was willing to fly them to whichever country they'd be working in, and back, which is typically not the case; so they'd have to be able to afford the time off work *and* plane (or boat) tickets *and* room and board *and* food for the time they were abroad affecting real change. Which, again, comes down to numbers.

But you go right on ahead and say it's ignorant and cheap to look at it from that perspective. Just assume that all of us greedy fucks over here are just sitting on our hands; after all, if we really wanted to change things, surely we could, right?

I pointed out where we were in agreement: that people have their own definitions of harassment and that the definitions can vary daily, hourly, or even more frequently. Was I terse? Yes because, most of the time (like 10AM in a Friday), I have better things to do than write novels to argue with ACs on Slashdot. Which brings us around to:

As an additional comment, your circular link back to your original post with the hyperlinking on "corporate policy" is douchetastically deceptive.

Or, I had just spent 15 minutes writing and revising the linked post only 4 minutes before writing the one you replied to and, well, I'll refer you to my prior statement regarding having better things to do.

Rather than attacking me (anonymously), why don't you try discussing what I'm actually saying? Is it that, while you disagree with my message, you can't seem to come up with any counterarguments? Are personal attacks really the best you've got? If so, perhaps you should reconsider your position. That always seems to work for me when I can't find any arguments against positions I disagree with; and it's not flip-flopping to change your position based on previously unconsidered information or viewpoints, it's growth. I've been doing it my whole life and I think everyone should try it, it's some good stuff.

No. If they decide to leave, they've clearly decided not to be trash. For the record, before anyone points out that I forgot to check the "Post Anonymously" box, no, I didn't, I'm not the AC who posted the "all Chinese are trash" remark, nor do I necessarily agree with it; but if we make the assumption that he is correct and everyone in China is trash, then it stands to reason that anyone who leaves China is not. Just following the logic, not saying it's correct.

The problem is, once you get past the obvious impositions, there is no bright line, only sand traps. Some women can tell raunchier jokes than a longshoreman, like to horse aroundand others will accuse you of oppressing them if you ask them to pass the salt at the lunch table.

Did I not acknowledge that everyone has different ideas of what is and is not harassment? I'm pretty sure the emphasis on "your" in the bit of my post that you quoted does exactly that. As for "some days it was, and some days it wasn't", I covered that with "purposely". So yes, that really is the answer, and it can be made corporate policy, as well.

That's why HR departments need to implement a "talk it out" program. Set aside a private conference room, just a room with a small table and 2 chairs, where people can talk out their issues, with documentation of the issue that was discussed, and signatures from both parties indicating that the discussion did, in fact, take place. The forms are deposited into a locked box (via a slot, obviously) in that very same room, to be collected weekly by HR, but no action to be taken aside from filing the form away in the complainant's employee file. It should then become HR policy, when someone comes in to complain about a coworker and does not have an appropriate "talk it out" form in their file already, ti simply hand them the form and tell them to talk it out. Attach a 3 strikes rule to that (e.g. if you come to us without the form 3 times, you are the problem) and make the forms openly available without needing to contact HR, and you have a way to weed out people who just like to complain.

Of course, if the form is on file, the complaint needs to be heard. If the complaint refers to the incident discussed on the "talk it out" form, the complainant should be reprimanded; if the complaint refers to a continuation of the behavior discussed on the form, the person the complainant is complaining about should be reprimanded.

Make attempting to work things out like normal adults an actual corporate policy and attach real consequences to not doing so, filing false complaints, or otherwise the system, and watch the problem solve itself.

Thus far you're the only person reading anything more into my post than what is there. I think the problem must be everyone else, though, you're right. Comprehend that a fauxminist and a feminist are two different people and you'll realize that the AC was correct. You're reading into that post a lot, as confirmed by myself, personally, telling you that you are reading things I neither wrote nor intended to write.

But go ahead and keep telling yourself I must be getting worked up about it because you insist that I am. I did mention megalomania in that post, right? Indeed. If you still think I was getting worked up in that post, go get help.

Something tells me my dissenter stopped at "fauxminist" and, thus, never saw my remark about real feminist issues. At first I thought I was being trolled and, if you've seen my posting history, you should know I'm somewhat prone to feeding them for my own entertainment. Imagine my disappointment when it turned out that this person simply lacks reading comprehension or, at best, didn't actually read my entire post.

You're the one using exclamations:) I'm just making level-headed, even-toned observations and stating an opinion in support of (legitimate) feminism. You disagree, of course, so you're reading more into it than what's there.

The legal system is the only place you have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Last time I checked, there were no checkout lines (or shop vacs) in the legal system. It's private property and you don't have to set foot on it if you don't want to. I'll let you draw the rest of that conclusion.

People need to (wo)man the fuck up and talk to each other, let them know where *your* lines are, and only escalate if they continue to *purposely* cross them. Don't be a knob about it and clarify your limits once, then escalate when they make some off the cuff remark a year later; learn to let things go once in a while, as we're all human and we all let things slip occasionally. Unless they're being purposely offensive to you and have made it clear they simply don't care if it bothers you (and they'll typically come right out and say as much to your face, so you don't have to read into things), you probably don't need to (and shouldn't) escalate things, because yes, that can and often do backfire. Sure, the person you complain about takes a pay cut, gets transferred out, or gets fired, but you become a social pariah around the workplace and nobody will have your back if anything actually does happen.

Is that a sly way of turning the faux feminist arguments we always hear about how all men are scum (real feminists don't necessarily feel that way) around on them? e.g. "Yeah, we're all pigs, and you want to be our equals. Welcome to life as a pig."

If so, it's pretty darn clever, though I don't think it'll have the intended effect. You see, no matter how clever you are, you can't argue with a fauxminist, because her megalomaniacal self image, combined with her view of men as something lesser beings (which, you're right, they claim to want to be equal to; so it seems they want to lower themselves, since they sure as hell don't want to raise us up) prevent her from ever listening to your logic. A feminist, on the other hand, is capable of participating in a proper discussion of the issues at hand and recognizing the absurdity of statements like "All men are PIGS!" before they come out of her mouth.

The sad part is that the fauxminists, while a minority, are so vocal that they destroy the message of real feminists who are trying to affect change regarding real issues.